We STILL can’t trust the EU says lawyer as Barnier admits UK and EU do have trust issue

EUROPE’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier this morning admitted Britain and the EU had to work on trust issues – but a leading QC asked how could we trust an EU which was seemingly insistent on tripping up the UK.

Mr Barnier spoke to reporters outside today’s high profile extraordinary meeting in Brussels where Mrs May and the leaders of the 27 members of the EU are set to sign the formal Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. He said: “This deal is a necessary step to build the trust between the UK and the EU. We need to build the next phase because this is an unprecedented and ambitious partnership.” But, writing in the Sunday Telegraph EU legal specialist Thomas Sharpe QC, said trust had broken down on all sides.

Related articles

It [Brexit deal] illustrates a striking feature in the whole affair and that is the near total absence of trust everywhere

Thomas Sharpe

The leading member of Lawyers for Britain wrote was damning about the “variable geometery” of Mrs May’s deal as it stands and added many issues, such as the legal status of UK citizen post Brexit, could have been agreed some time ago if the EU had any commitment to building trust.

He said: “It illustrates a striking feature in the whole affair and that is the near total absence of trust everywhere.

“Those who listened to the Lancaster House speech no longer trust the Prime Minister. Few trust the Treasury or Bank of England to deviate from the CBI orthodoxy. The Cabinet does not trust Mr Robbins. The DUP, perhaps justifiably, seem to trust only in themselves.

QC Thomas Sharpe said there is 'near total absence of trust everywhere' (Image: getty)

“Yet, by its obduracy and refusal to offer comfort to UK citizens elsewhere in the EU, obviously to compound the pressures facing the UK or, for example, its refusal to match the UK’s unilateral actions on permissions in the City or resolving the urgent situation involving derivative contracts in London, building up trust is not a Commission imperative.

“Throughout, the process has been one of EU opportunism to reap some benefit from the UK exit and plainly to send an appropriate message, much as the Berlin Wall advertised the charms of East Germany.

“And the Commission expects the UK to trust that obligations of “best endeavours” in Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement and “good faith” in Article 138 will be sufficient to conclude a durable agreement by the end of 2020. They are not.”

It is a set of complex contingent possibilities which boil down to a central proposition: the “closer and deeper the partnership the stronger will be the accompanying obligations”.

Mr Sharpe said 'soft Brexit' likely with UK aligning itself with EU rules such as those on fishing (Image: getty)

So the more the UK aligns itself with EU rules and regulations, accepts the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in certain matters, cedes rights of access to UK fishing areas “within the context of the overall economic partnership”, accepts EU agreement on “relevant tax matters”, follows the EU on climate change, maintains acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights, maintains competition and state aid regimes to ensure a “level playing field”, among many other areas, the greater the chances of a so-called “soft Brexit”.

Some of the Declaration is welcome: reassurance for UK citizens living in the EU27 is long overdue; cooperation on sharing intelligence information, catching criminals and counter-terrorism is good for all parties.

So is the continuation of international research programmes between universities and research teams where the excellence of British institutions has won them success in competitions for peer-reviewed funds.

Related articles

Allowing visa-free visits and provisions for study in the EU and UK is also a welcome restoration of the status quo ante EU. Mutually sensible arrangements for aviation, road and rail passengers, and road freight are equally welcome.

None of these non-economic matters have anything to do with the integrity of the “single market”. They simply represent “statecraft”: what good government should aspire to, especially given we all start from the same place.

If the UK can be criticised for poor preparation, it is also worth pointing out that all of this could have been announced by the Commission or even agreed in principle long ago and would have served to build up trust. But they did not.